Ukraine's navy isn't doing too bad considering that they don't have any large ships.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Russia invades Ukraine
- Thread starter kristiang85
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DarloRich
Veteran Member
they are doing well for a nation with no navy
They do have a navy, but they scuttled their only large ship at the start of the war. Now they have some small coastal patrol boats and drones. Lots of drones.they are doing well for a nation with no navy
StoneRoad
Member
Did a little checking [some on reddit / wikipedia / ISW]
As far as I can see, the Ukrainians have sunk / badly damaged 12 vessels, mostly from the Black Sea Fleet - although the russians snuck in a dozen vessels [Ropucha landing ships] through the Bosporus Strait, under Turkey's nose, just before things kicked off in Feb 2022.
That dozen were mostly drone victims, although missiles accounted for the Rostov-on-don Kilo class sub, Minsk and The Moskva.
Also includes 4 Ropucha & 1 Alligator class landing ships.
Don't ignore that they also put a missile or two into the BSF HQ in Sevastopol.
Slightly over 20% of the normal Black Sea Fleet.
As far as I can see, the Ukrainians have sunk / badly damaged 12 vessels, mostly from the Black Sea Fleet - although the russians snuck in a dozen vessels [Ropucha landing ships] through the Bosporus Strait, under Turkey's nose, just before things kicked off in Feb 2022.
That dozen were mostly drone victims, although missiles accounted for the Rostov-on-don Kilo class sub, Minsk and The Moskva.
Also includes 4 Ropucha & 1 Alligator class landing ships.
Don't ignore that they also put a missile or two into the BSF HQ in Sevastopol.
Slightly over 20% of the normal Black Sea Fleet.
Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in Arctic Circle jail, says Russia
Jailed Russian politician Alexei Navalny has died in a penal colony, the country's prison service says.
www.bbc.co.uk
Presumably not of natural causes either.
brad465
Established Member
Whatever the cause, what's most surprising is he lived as long as he did.Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in Arctic Circle jail, says Russia
Jailed Russian politician Alexei Navalny has died in a penal colony, the country's prison service says.www.bbc.co.uk
Presumably not of natural causes either.
Don't know what you mean by that. Arsenic is natural, as are cyanide and polonium.
Annetts key
Established Member
Freezing to death 'while walking" is also natural causes, is it not?
birchesgreen
Established Member
Thing is, he could have genuinely died of natural causes or an accident but no one will believe it anyway.
Ironic that here when anyone dies, it's blamed on the vaccine. In Russia every death is natural causes... including falls out of windows.
brad465
Established Member
Unless the vaccine is from Russia, suddenly
This strongly points to some sort of poison/toxin/similar that dissipates in about 2 weeks. There was something I read that in case of the death of a prisoner the authorities in Russia have to release the body within 2 days; the chances of the prison governor being arrested for not doing so are between no chance and absolutely no chance.
As was pointed out on R2 yesterday this is the time when we need to give Ukraine all the weapons and ammo it needs to kick the Russians out as it's the only method short of Putin snuffing it that has any chance of getting rid of him, Putin is showing what we knew all a long that he has no limits and unfortunately it's only total failure in Ukraine that has any chance of there finally being another revolution in Russia.
plus we need to be seen to be doing something rather than just letting him get away with things otherwise it just seems to him that we have no teeth and would be an easy target. I bet there also a lot more money we can confiscate from oligarchs too plus any foreign reserves Russia has.
plus we need to be seen to be doing something rather than just letting him get away with things otherwise it just seems to him that we have no teeth and would be an easy target. I bet there also a lot more money we can confiscate from oligarchs too plus any foreign reserves Russia has.
Last edited:
Annetts key
Established Member
I fully agree that supplying Ukraine with far more weapons and munitions is needed.
With regards to applying more financial pressure on Russia, the catch is that really means dealing with their trade in oil and gas. Stopping or severely limiting the export of Russian oil and gas will affect world wide prices due to the international trade.
Having said that, I'm sure there is a way of better enforcing the price cap on Russian oil. The question is, how to deal with Russias 'shadow' oil tanker fleet (said to number around 1000 tankers).
Putin clearly is digging in for a long war. The 'western' countries need to understand that if Putin gets a 'win' out of this, he will become even more dangerous. Plus, other countries are watching carefully. We don't want any 'unfriendly' countries or groups to get any ideas that 'the west' is weak.
With regards to applying more financial pressure on Russia, the catch is that really means dealing with their trade in oil and gas. Stopping or severely limiting the export of Russian oil and gas will affect world wide prices due to the international trade.
Having said that, I'm sure there is a way of better enforcing the price cap on Russian oil. The question is, how to deal with Russias 'shadow' oil tanker fleet (said to number around 1000 tankers).
Putin clearly is digging in for a long war. The 'western' countries need to understand that if Putin gets a 'win' out of this, he will become even more dangerous. Plus, other countries are watching carefully. We don't want any 'unfriendly' countries or groups to get any ideas that 'the west' is weak.
DustyBin
Established Member
There are reports that another A-50 has been downed, possibly by friendly fire. Unconfirmed I should add, but these things always start out that way…
Annetts key
Established Member
There is some "information" that it was a modified/upgraded S200 anti-aircraft missile system.
brad465
Established Member
I assume you're saying this is what shot down the A-50 according to reports, rather than that system was what was shot at.
If either side have managed to get an S-200 to fly, that would be newsworthy!
brad465
Established Member
Apparently Navalny was close to being released in a prisoner swap deal:
Alexei Navalny: Putin critic about to be freed in prisoner swap when he died, says ally
Maria Pevchikh said the Russian opposition leader was going to be exchanged for a hitman when he died.
www.bbc.co.uk
Giugiaro
Member
It's only natural that someone would die in Russia after picking someone's beef at the Russian Government and Co.
The Salekhard's Investigative Committee even agrees!
Last edited:
uglymonkey
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 480
Is Russia wining the war currently ? or Ukraine? Stalemate? What will the reasons for the 2 parties to get to a negotiated peace (if ever)? Or like WW1 is it just going to go on and on year on year with endless slaughter and no real difference accomplished strategically for either side?
It's more or less a stalemate at the moment, but there's a real chance that Ukraine will be forced to retreat because they don't have enough munitions to either maintain the status quo or make any advances. At lot of this depends on what happens in the US Congress over the next few weeks.
DustyBin
Established Member
The situation on the ground is tough for Ukraine at present as you say. They do however appear to be having considerable success in the air, with Russian aircraft losses being reported more-or-less daily. I should add that these are largely unconfirmed (unless it's something like an A-50), but the sources I've seen have proven to be reliable in the past. What exactly is going on seems unclear; either the Russians are becoming increasingly reckless, or Ukraine has changed it's tactics or possibly equipment. Su-34s in particular are dropping like flies apparently.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Speculation I've seen is that from time to time they borrow a Patriot system from urban defence and bring it near the front line where the aircraft dropping glide bombs etc from well within occupied territory are within range. This would explain why multiple aircraft are downed in a short period, then none for a while. But even this is dependent on external support, though I believe a Patriot production line is being set up in Germany.
Annetts key
Established Member
Supplies for Ukraine from, or paid for by countries other than the U.S.A. are still flowing. Various European countries including the U.K. have recently announced more support for example.
However, the amount of artillery shells is limited, especially without supplies from the U.S.A. and that really is causing Ukraine problems. The Ukrainians are willing to trade land for better defensive positions if that helps reduce their own losses.
Russia is really pushing for political reasons. Likely to give Putin "good news" for domestic reasons (the election). It remains to be seen if Russia can continue to suffer the current level of equipment losses as the year proceeds. They will likely be able to sustain the current loss of around 1000 personnel per day for at least a year or more.
GLSDB and F16 aircraft could well help Ukraine as these become available. GLSDB having already been funded by the U.S.A., so not affected by the problem of the impasse in the House of Representatives.
However, the amount of artillery shells is limited, especially without supplies from the U.S.A. and that really is causing Ukraine problems. The Ukrainians are willing to trade land for better defensive positions if that helps reduce their own losses.
Russia is really pushing for political reasons. Likely to give Putin "good news" for domestic reasons (the election). It remains to be seen if Russia can continue to suffer the current level of equipment losses as the year proceeds. They will likely be able to sustain the current loss of around 1000 personnel per day for at least a year or more.
GLSDB and F16 aircraft could well help Ukraine as these become available. GLSDB having already been funded by the U.S.A., so not affected by the problem of the impasse in the House of Representatives.
Well, the USSR was in Afghanistan for 9 years.
Even if they "won" they would, like there, face endless problems trying to run the country effectively.
As with Afghanistan it seems it will take a much more enlightened regime to end the conflict.
DustyBin
Established Member
I think that’s the most likely (if least “interesting”) explanation.
Would they need to move the whole system, or could the launcher be brought forward and the rest kept safely away from the front line? (I’m presuming the radar coverage exceeds the range of the missiles here, or there’d be little point!).
Russia is enjoying local successes (at great cost) at the moment but the overall picture remains one of general stalemate though pressure is high on Ukraine due to a lack of artillery in particular caused by the Republicans in the House of Representatives blocking additional military aid. Aid remains substantial, particularly from Europe recently, but only the US at present has the depth of magazines and production to supply what Ukraine needs most urgently.
It would be nice, after two years, to see more munitions production in Europe and there are moves in the right direction but its painfully and, to be honest, downright embarrassing. Russia is by itself out producing Europe despite having an economy a fraction the size of Europe, we should be able to beat their production of vital war supplies without breaking a sweat. And yet here we are unable to do so.
Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? I suspect Putin feels no particular need, at the moment, to negotiate a settlement. He might be willing to do so if they can fully secure the illegally annexed territories in eastern Ukraine (perhaps excluding the parts of Kherson oblast that are on the other side of the Dnipro river) but I certainly wouldn't put money on it. I'm not sure what would draw Ukraine to the table as any scenario I can see would mean them coming to the table from a terribly weak position meaning that it would be more likely for Putin to consider it an opportunity to press for more rather than settle.
In any event, any peace deal on Russian terms would only ever be a temporary pause in hostilities before a resumption at some point in the future and would put paid to any idea that territorial disputes should be settled by force of arms. Russia's reward for invading another country and killing thousands, dehousing thousands more, raping thousands, committing uncounted war crimes, abducting children and so on and so on is territory. I'm far from convinced that that is a sensible thing to be encouraged.
The war is going to end at the negotiating table for sure. It's not Best way of ensuring a positive outcome is to arm Ukraine to the teeth and allow them to force Russia to the table via battlefield success and then any concessions that Ukraine may choose to make would be of their own doing.
I'm not entirely convinced by this characterisation of World War One as an aside. It is a view which has been popularised by some of the war poets, some post World War 2 historians and perhaps most commonly, Blackadder Goes Forth (which is tremendous but not necessarily good history...). This is not to dispute that the loss of life was extraordinary and lessons that should have been learned earlier were not properly inculcated as quickly as they should have been. But endless slaughter with no real difference accomplished strategically?
The war ended in 1918 with the near total defeat of the German Army in the field by the Allies reversing the gains that the Germans had made both earlier in 1918 during their own Spring Offensive but even recapturing areas which had fallen back in 1914. If the war had gone on into 1919 the Allies would have been pressing deep into Germany proper. Again there were utter travesties, day one of the Somme, Passchendaele (especially egregious as they had the perfect example of how to conduct battles in the preparatory attack at Battle of Messines), the ludicrous numbers of battles at Isonzo, to name a few. But the whole war? The popular conception of World War One has become that they dug a set of trenches and machine gunned each other for four years but its a far more complex conflict than that.
The point about 1918 was that it represented significant changes of tactics., breaking the stalemates of the previous few years. The criticism, IMHO justified, is of generals (especially Allied) who pursued a strategy of attrition.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
According to some random bloke on YouTube the radar can be separate from the launcher, which apparently (not sure how) makes it more difficult for Russian pilots to determine that the missile is aimed at them. This probably doesn't mean they can leave the radar in Kyiv.
With the caveat that I'm certainly not an expert here, I believe the static nature of the Western Front was because defensive measures and weapons (such as trenches and machine guns) could mostly nullify the offensive ones available at the time. This changed somewhat with the advent of the tank, but I believe what was more important was America entering the war. This triggered the Germans to launch an offensive trying to strike a decisive blow before the extra resources arrived on the Allied side, which they could not follow through. Meanwhile in the east, Russia suffered a resolution and accepted German terms to end the conflict.
There are some parallels with Ukraine. Defensive measures also have the upper hand, partly because of drones and other technological advances and partly because neither side has enough of the right equipment that the USA (for example) would bring to the same sort of conflict. It remains to be seen whether Ukraine will receive such equipment in sufficient quantity to be decisive, but unlikely that Russia will find a game-changing capability that they haven't tried already (the only such being nuclear, and I can't see even Putin doing that). Meanwhile there is some risk that Russia will collapse but a greater one that the West will continue to provide less support than needed.
I believe the attrition will continue until at least November, when if Biden is re-elected and Western resolve continues Russia may start looking for a way out. If we end up with Trump then Ukraine might be wise to cut its losses and look for a settlement that freezes the front lines - conceding any extra territory creates a Czechoslovakia 1938 situation where the new frontier is not defended and the invader can just grab more. Either way, an enlarged and combat-tested Russian army has the potential to cause trouble elsewhere.